When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy.
So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: going on about 'statists'
--- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... A world with the all inclusive
> Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we
> debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us"
> and "me" that works best.Two questions:
1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific?
2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be
some other necessary distinction.Fred Foldvary
=====
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: RE: going on about 'statists'
Joe, I
agree with you, in essence, yet also support Fred's
technicalities.
I'm
not at all sure that the freedom of anarchy, perhaps with chaos/spontaneous
order, is as bad as Corporate State (or even what we have now); and I'm
pretty sure that Libertarian policies "would be abject failures" -- NOT.
But I
certainly agree that the most short term relevant debates are in the "middle"
ground mixes of "us" and "them", since the VAST majority
of US voters consistently vote in a more statist way than I do, or than I think
is optimal. 20 years ago, I was more optimistic for faster change, such as
school vouchers/ tax credits (a neo-lib? position).
You
are also very right to imply that it is extremely unlikely that any large
geographic area on Earth will be without some local organized 'monoply on the
final use of violence' -- and such an org is the essence of
gov't.
Leading me ... to tax policy. I know most anarchists oppose most
taxes, but it seems clear to me that some taxes are worse than others. I
think corporate income taxes, for instance, are better than taxes on dividends;
one moral reason being that corporations enjoy, justified or not, limited
liability.
Similarly, land & resource taxes, including pollution, seem excellent
candidates for higher taxes, to reduce income taxes.
Help
please -- is there a good tract on Austrian tax policy, ordering or ranking
various taxes?
And
I'm familiar with, and support the idea that lower taxes generally increase
growth....
Tom
Grey
